Berkeley hu? I wonder if he knows my freind Martin Jay? Or John Abromite?

that's unreasonable. This is not academia. We don't know whose reading this. Not that I think you or Carrier or Still or anyone would stoop to anything, but you never know whose lurking. The whole reason for screen names in the fist place is becasue we don't know what will see it. It's not an academic site, getting you think up at the Sec Web cannot be put on a Vita, and there is no peer review really. I mean for message board posters there is but I doubt that you would take the same care to find a really good ref like a real journal would do.

Besides it's a lot less likley that some waco would be lurking on the on line version of Lingua Franke, or Negations or some other academic journal, but it's quite likely that one might be here. So to avoid any trouble its only reasonable to maintain privacy.

If I debate I'll use my name but that's my decision. And only if the other guy demands it.

SecWebLurker is under no obligation to reveal his name. My point is only that his anonymous opinion is of little value.

Such a debate could be interesting depending on the subject. (I'm not that interested in theology) What would you like to debate Carrier about?

1. Like Nomad, you have an agenda which makes it impossible for you to approach historicity from a strictly historical point of view.

2. Like Nomad, you're a "buy the pot" debater. You probably think you win most of your debates, when instead it's simply that other people have lives.

3. You are not honest in your use of argument or authority. And, when called on it, tend either to disappear until the dust settles or get extremely pissy.

4. You can't write for beans.

Issac Newton. I bet I know more about him than he does.

Seriously, I don't know, the basic resurrection thing, the nature of historicity of the NT and that sort of thing. I'm not an acient world historian I do early modern and enlightenment. So he would have the advantage.

Meta =>Duh! And you don't? Pull the other one. You think the Sec WEb guys have no agenda. ahahahahahahhahaahah, how stupid can you get? When every page on their site reails against Christainity O yea they are just objective truth seekers. My god how blind you are!!!! BEsides that's what you want for a debate. You don't want people who agree and are afriad of direct clash, debate is dialectical you want point counter point.

2. Like Nomad, you're a "buy the pot" debater. You probably think you win most of your debates, when instead it's simply that other people have lives.

Meta =>buy the post? You don't know anyhting about what I think. Like most sketpics on this site you are making silly assumptions because you are too ignorant to even know the difference in a liberal, a neo-orthdox and evangelical. you just paint everythign with a broad brush. O all Chrsitains are stupid and narrow and we atheists are all objective truth seekers who never think ideologically, that's why we march in lock step and refuse to think!

Why do you think the no 1 respense when I talk about being an atheist is "you weren't a real atheist, you werne't a true beleiver atheist like we are."???


3. You are not honest in your use of argument or authority. And, when called on it, tend either to disappear until the dust settles or get extremely pissy.


Meta =>You have neither the knolwedge nor the credentials to make good on that claim. Now you show me one place where i"ve been dishonest about anything. I document extensively and with the best sources avaible and when I do they go "that's just cut and paste." when I dont' "that's just your opinion." So either way they are never fair never objective. They are the one's who are totally dishonest becasue they don't know eough and they wont to know enough to even understand the evdience. If the bibical criticism evidence they are talking about were guns they would have shot themselves in the head a long time ago.

Now you back that up, put up or shut up!

4. You can't write for beans.[/QUOTE]


I write far better than you do. I've posted my real articles before and Kate Long agreed that I am a very good writter. I can't take the time to really work on it for each of these posts, its another hypocritical double bind. If I do spend the time I dont 'have a life. so that means im no good. If i dont' than I can't write.

Hey of your writting sux. You think that dirvel above is clever ,deep insightful or well written? It's crap.

Historicity of the NT might be interesting. Wonder if there is any way to get Carrier to participate in a formal debate on such a subject (though I'm sure it'll have to be more specific) Does the moderator have any ideas or insights? (Personal contact?)

Meta =>ON the few occasions where the ignorance of some has been so rife that they didn't have the brains to understand the point or the documentation and they have thought I was being dishonest, largely out of stupidity, I have demonstrated to them that they are full of it and they usually don't have enough knoweldge to even undersand why.

You are a hypocrite and an idiot. I have other things to do that means I'm "running away." but when you do it its because you have a life.

Ok than debate me in the speicial forum. You think I always lose and that I'm dihonest than you debate me. why are you afraid to accept the challenge? If I'm so bad and so stupid than surely you ought to win easily, why are you afraid?

MEta =>4. You can't write for beans.[/QUOTE]

Read it!

http://www.webspawner.com/users/scienceandnature/

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 30, 2001).]

Yea, sure, it would have to be more specific. I was just naming a general area. But I'll work on a topic statement, or maybe just challenge him on something he's done.